Pseudo-Science and Sensationalist Archaeology: An Exposé of Jimmy Barfield and the Copper Scroll Project

Members of the academy must take individual responsibility and make conscious efforts to rebut examples of obvious disinformation whenever and wherever they arise. Likewise, archaeologists must band together and coordinate their efforts to meet these misleading claims as strongly and consistently as possible. For in a world where Wikipedia allows anyone to say just about anything, scholars must move beyond their comfortable arenas of peer-review and professional conferences, where they talk only to one another, and redouble our efforts to reach out to the public directly. We must counter irresponsible claims with measured responses, debunk and discredit them, and offer alternative theories from a spectrum of reliable scholars who, while they may at times disagree, can support their various claims with scientific facts, tangible data, and sound reason.

There
is a scourge that has reemerged to plague professional archaeologists
and biblical scholars, not to mention a gullible general public. It
is powerful, seductive, ubiquitous, and quite media savvy. It is not
confined to the realms of logic, sound judgment, peer review, and
cogency, but rather exists in the sphere of circular reasoning and
preys on the hearts and wallets of the religious, who want to believe
the lies this deceiver is spouting. It scoffs at the educated because
they possess the power to refute it, and it relies on their apathy
and arrogance to move about unhindered. It champions ignorance and
promotes dilettantish claims with a populist message of, “You
don’t need no Ph.D. to be a scholar.” And it claims
superiority over experience, training, and contrary evidence by
invoking God-inspired revelation as its motive. The scourge I speak
of is sensationalist archaeology.

Sensationalist
archaeology is nothing new. As long as there have been objects
discovered in the Holy Land, there have been those that insist the
objects prove a particular faith claim. A chunk of wood on a mountain
is Noah’s Ark. A chunk of wood in Jerusalem is the Cross of
Jesus. And a chunk of wood in the Red Sea is proof of the Exodus.
Unsubstantiated claims by amateur archaeologists are not new, nor are
their direct-to-the-public media attempts to capture eyes and hearts
in the age old effort to capture dollars. As P. T. Barnum
prophetically said, “There’s a sucker born every minute.”

On
the opposite end of the spectrum are actual scholars. Drab and dirty,
bespectacled and bookish, this gaggle of library dwellers and
manuscript examiners were never the coolest kids at school. And with
the exception of some recent developments in technology, these
lifelong nerds appear so old fashioned and matted that they take on
the appearance of the very antiquities they study; especially the
archaeologists. So lacking in adventure and romance are the
archaeologists that they require a fictional Hollywood hero, Indiana
Jones, to bring some sense of adventure to their otherwise routine,
studious lives.

But
with years of study and discipline comes credibility. And despite the
fact that people often tease scholars about being boring, the public
ultimately look to them for confirmation about the veracity of claims
made daily by those around them. Scientists become the judges of
claims made by those selling miracle drugs. Mathematicians become the
judges of statistical claims and physicists and astronomers arbitrate
claims made regarding the origin of the earth. And biblical
archaeologists and scholars are charged with the revered
responsibility of arbitrating between claims made about the
historicity of various assertions made in the Bible whether they like
it or not. Thus, the role of the archaeologist is one of careful
analysis, exhaustive research, guarded judgment, and the responsible
dissemination of their findings through respected outlets that
preserve the esteemed credibility of their vocation. Archaeologists
are the accepted authorities over material remains and their
interpretation; for biblical archaeologists, that includes the Bible
and the material remains found in the Holy Land.

While
many desire this authority and the prestige that accompanies it, not
all are willing to dedicate their lives to the scholarly pursuits
required to accumulate the vast depth and breadth of knowledge
necessary over one’s lifetime to become such an authority. Many
crave the honor and the lifestyle, but few are willing to make the
sacrifice. Fewer still are willing to subject their beliefs, their
worldviews, and their lives to the scrutiny of the scientific method
and to the daily criticism implicit within the scholarly process—a
process necessary to hone and sharpen the critical skills necessary
to becoming a credible scholar.

Some
just want the cameras pointed at them. Others want people to listen
to them. Some are seeking to prove their preconceived beliefs, while
others are looking to make a buck. And while these are not worthy to
be called “scholar,” oftentimes the public cannot tell
the difference. Worse yet, the academy does itself a complete
disservice when it refuses to call amateur posers onto the carpet for
the claims they are making. Many scholars argue that they should not
waste time dignifying sensational, unfounded claims with a response,
because doing so only lends credence to their otherwise spurious
claims. However, the lines between scholarly credibility and
dilettantish sensationalism are becoming increasingly blurred. With
the rise of the internet, blogging, YouTube, podcasts, iTunes U, and
other forms of self-publication making more information readily
available to the public, many hacks and pseudo-scientists are using
these non-refereed media to make their sensational claims.

The
academic community must combat these unscholarly claims. Members of
the academy must take individual responsibility and make conscious
efforts to rebut examples of obvious disinformation whenever and
wherever they arise. Likewise, archaeologists must band together and
coordinate their efforts to meet these misleading claims as strongly
and consistently as possible. For in a world where Wikipedia allows
anyone to say just about anything, scholars must move beyond their
comfortable arenas of peer-review and professional conferences, where
they talk only to one another, and redouble our efforts to reach out
to the public directly. We must counter irresponsible claims with
measured responses, debunk and discredit them, and offer alternative
theories from a spectrum of reliable scholars who, while they may at
times disagree, can support their various claims with scientific
facts, tangible data, and sound reason.

The
academy has fallen too far behind in the area of modern media. Television
documentaries, blogs, and other self-produced vehicles of information
dissemination have nearly been monopolized by entertainment brokers
and scammers, who are all looking to make money by peddling popular
misinformation. Scholars must venture into these less comfortable
waters and begin to engage the public on their terms, for indeed, the
winds have shifted and the environment of learning has shifted from
the classroom to the living room. With wireless internet and
satellite television pumping more information than a person can
handle into homes around the world each day, an increasing number of
people are getting their news and information from the internet and
television rather than university campuses. At some point, the
academy must relinquish its notion that the public will come to them
for verification of facts and must take their message to the people.
Scholars must work with university media relations personnel and
technologists to maximize the reach of their research and
instructional materials. And as always, scholars must publish their
findings in a timely and credible manner, or they will indeed perish.
Or, far worse, the truth will.

Therefore,
in an effort to practice what I preach, I shall address the most
recent group to make sensational and unsubstantiated claims: Jimmy
Barfield and his Copper Scroll Project.

I
have previously addressed the nonsense coming from the Copper Scroll
Project in an essay for Bible
and Interpretation
entitled, “On the Insignificance and the Abuse of the Copper
Scroll.”1
In this review, I shall update that essay by addressing here the most
recent claims made by Jimmy Barfield on his website,2
in his radio interview with Tamar Yonah,3
and in the Jerusalem Post article written by his supporter, Shelly
Neese.4

For
those not yet familiar with it, the Copper Scroll Project
(http://www.copper-scroll-project.com) is directed by Jimmy Barfield,
a retired arson investigator from Apache, Oklahoma, who claims to
have won an “International Investigator of the Year”
award.5
He is a Torah-observant Christian6
who says that he has “broken the code on the Copper Scroll,”7
despite the fact that he possesses a “limited knowledge of
Hebrew” and “no archaeological experience,”8
and is, by his own admission, “not qualified to do the
translation” of the Copper Scroll.9

In
a radio interview earlier this week with Arutz
Sheva’s Weekend
Edition host Tamar
Yonah,10
Barfield makes some downright outrageous and unsubstantiated
“archaeological” (and I use the term very loosely)
claims. A transcript of Tamar Yonah’s interview with Jimmy
Barfield can be found on my blog.11
There you will also find a link to a downloadable version of the
interview, which will allow you to read the transcript as you listen to the
interview.

First
and foremost, according to his website, his multiple YouTube
updates,12
the Arutz Sheva
interview,13
and the Jerusalem Post fluff piece14
written by supporter and fellow Christian Zionist Shelly Neese, who
also runs the Christian Zionist Website “The JerUSAlem
Connection,”15
Barfield claims:

“I
can tell you this: I’ve, I’ve broken the code on the
Copper Scroll.”16

However,
there is no code! The Copper Scroll is not written in code. It is
written in Hebrew. The Hebrew used in the Copper Scroll most closely
resembles the Hebrew used in the Mishnah,
the Jewish law code compiled around 200 CE. Despite the linguistic
similarities, Barfield further claims:

“The
scroll, uh, was, uh written sometime around the time of Jeremiah.”17

If
the Copper Scroll were written “around the time of Jeremiah,”
it would have been written in the seventh century BCE. No scholar
accepts this dating, and there is abundant evidence to the contrary
that refutes this absurd claim. Barfield offers no archaeological,
palaeographical, or philological evidence to support his claim that
the Copper Scroll was written in the time of the prophet Jeremiah.

Additionally,
Barfield believes that the Copper Scroll can only be properly
understood when seen alongside the, “Second Book of
Maccabees, as well as a lesser known seventeenth century book
called Emek Hamelech (“Valley of the King”).”18
In his blog, Dr. Richard Bartholomew has noted that Barfield’s
claims depend not upon archaeological evidence, but upon the Emek
HaMelech, a highly
mythological seventeenth-century Kabbalistic manuscript.19
The Emek HaMelech
tells the story of five holy men that helped the prophet Jeremiah
hide the Temple treasures from the invading Babylonians. Somehow, in
Barfield’s mind, a medieval manuscript, a legend about
Jeremiah, the non-canonical book of 2 Maccabees, and some construed
messianic prophecies result in the Copper Scroll being dated not to
some time between 50 and 100 CE as nearly all scholars conclude, but
to the time of the prophet Jeremiah.

It
also appears that Barfield dates the Copper Scroll to the seventh
century BCE on the basis of his “other research:”20
namely, the “Timeline of the Messiah.”21
And what is this timeline? According to the Copper Scroll Project
website:

“The
timeline is a Microsoft Excel document that depicts Biblical dating
from the creation of Adam to the year 2040 AD…The timeline can
be used to see a graphic depiction of many Biblical Prophecies that
are dated, such as Jeremiah’s seventy year exile prophecy and
Daniel’s prophecies for the coming of the Messiah and many
others. A point of interest is the three dates given in the Dead Sea
Scrolls that prophesy the year of the birth of Yeshua and John the
Baptist, the year of the crucifixion, and the year of the destruction
of the Temple based on the crucifixion.”22

If
Barfield is dating the Copper Scroll, and his understanding of it,
based solely upon his own fundamentalist, literal interpretation of a
biblical timeline, which begins in 3988 BCE and works its way
forward, highlighting periods of Jubilees and multiple Messianic
prophecies, one might well ask, what training or qualifications does
he possess that enabled him to “crack the code” of the
Copper Scroll? How did he do it? He tells us himself, stating:

“I
utilized a, uh, translation by a gentleman by the name of Martinez.
Uh… he’s um, he is qualified to do translations. I am
not. I’m not qualified to do the translation.”23

So,
not only does Barfield fail to offer any evidence in support of his
sensational claim that the Copper Scroll dates to the time of the
prophet Jeremiah, but he admits during the interview that he did not
read the Copper Scroll in Hebrew, that he used an English translation
[by Florentino García Martínez], and that he is, “not
qualified to do the translation.” Therefore, one is left to
ask: what can Barfield possibly contribute to Copper Scroll research?
According to him, quite a lot.

For
example, Barfield has recently made several rather startling claims
about the nature of the treasure described in the Copper Scroll.
Barfield claims these items potentially include:

This
claim is nothing more than pure sensationalistic speculation designed
to rouse individuals of fundamentalist, Christian Zionist, or other
religious persuasions to take interest in his project. When asked by
Tamar Yonah if he believes treasures from the Temple, “including,
you believe, the Ark of the Covenant,” are mentioned in the
Copper Scroll and are buried in hidden locations, Barfield responds,
“It’s very possible.”25
This is the epitome of sensationalist speculation.

The
Copper Scroll is an intentionally ambiguous list of locations that
purport to be places where caches of treasure are buried. Many
scholars think the Copper Scroll is a modern hoax, while others think
it is an ancient hoax. Some believe it is a list of treasures that
belong to the Essenes, but many dispute this because some ancient
sources state that the Essenes lived austere lives that shunned great
wealth. Some scholars believe it is a list of items from the Second
Temple in Jerusalem that were hidden in the desert before the
destruction of the Temple by the Romans in 70 CE. This theory keeps
with the palaeographic dating of the text of the Copper Scroll, but
the absence of any evidence whatsoever in the form of treasures from
the Temple casts much doubt on even this somewhat plausible
interpretation. Joseph Patrich’s discovery of a Herodian period
juglet wrapped in palm fibers and containing the remains of a viscous
oil26
that may
have been balsam oil (this is disputed) in a cave near Qumran should
not be considered one of the “treasures” of the Temple,
despite fellow Torah-observant Christian and friend of Jimmy
Barfield, Vendyl Jones’ claim that the juglet contained, “Holy
Anointing Oil made by Moses himself” and the purifying “ashes
of the Red Heifer.” Jones’ interpretation has been
categorically dismissed by all credible scholars.27

As
stated above, the Copper Scroll is not written in code. However,
Barfield claims to have “cracked” it nevertheless. And
according to Barfield, the Copper Scroll is quite difficult to
understand. He states:

“The
Copper Scroll is not something that someone can come in and just
figure out.”28

And
yet, Barfield, with no archaeological or biblical training and a
very, very limited knowledge of Hebrew, claims to have done the
unthinkable:

“Uh… i- in the
length of time it took me to figure it out was just incredible. It
was amazing how soon and how quickly I figured this thing out.”29

Working
from an English translation of the Copper Scroll, Barfield claims to
have walked up, sat down, read the Copper Scroll, and done what
scholars have not been able to do in fifty years: identify the
locations listed in the Copper Scroll. Barfield claims, “After
looking at the scroll for five minutes he deciphered the first
location, and twenty minutes later he identified the next four
locations”.30

Barfield’s
claim is problematic on several levels. For one, exactly what haven’t
the scholars “figured out?” Scholars translated the
Copper Scroll fifty years ago. There is no “code” to
“crack.” By, “figured this thing out,” does
Barfield mean that he has located the treasure? How did Barfield do
this? Barfield explains his methodology:

“Now
here’s what I did: I identified the first, second, third, and
fourth, and I, I took a, uh, satellite map, took a nee-, took a pin,
a needle and I poked holes in this satellite map for each one of
them. And then I drew a line through each one and they lined up in
uh, like I said in a perfectly straight line, and they crossed over a
location that I had already identified utilizing only the description
on the Copper Scroll. Lori and I, my wife and, uh, and I, went to the
location, uh, testing to make sure that all the information that I
was looking at was correct, and the description led me to a point
very near Qumran, and there eh, was a, it, and you can see a place
that very much looks like the opening of a, uh, where a cave used to
be. Of course remember now, it’s been buried. Not only does it,
it’s described that way in Second Maccabees, but it’s
also described that way on the Copper Scroll. It [coughs] is an
entrance that is in buried, so that’s ho-, that’s how I
know this.”31

Barfield
claims to have read the locations from (one must assume) the García
Martínez English translation of the Dead Sea Scrolls,32
and poked little holes in a satellite map. Does Barfield not think
that scholars before him obtained a satellite map and tried to
determine the locations of the place names mentioned in the Copper
Scroll? What is additionally problematic about Barfield’s
so-called “methodology” is that Barfield assumes he knows
where to begin. Following García Martínez’
translation, which Barfield claims to have used, the legible portion
of the Copper Scroll begins:

1:1 In
the ruin which is in the valley of Acor, under

1:2 the
steps leading to the East,

1:3 forty
long cubits: a chest of silver and its vessels

1:4 with
a weight of seventeen talents. KEN

The
Valley of Acor33
has been associated with everything from a valley to the north of
Jericho,34
to Wadi al-Qelt south of Jericho,35
to the Buqei’a plain south of Qumran.36
Given that all subsequent locations are relative to the ambiguous
“ruin in the valley of Acor,” and that there are as many
ruins as there are candidates for “the valley of Acor,”
Barfield’s location is nothing more than uneducated guesswork.

Perhaps
even more amazing is where Barfield locates the treasure described by
the Copper Scroll. Barfield states:

“All
of those in between, now remember there’s approximately sixty
locations, there’s, uh, fifty more that can be easily
identified within the building complex of Qumran.”37

So,
Jimmy Barfield claims that fifty of the locations mentioned in the
Copper Scroll are located beneath the structures at Qumran. Qumran
was first excavated by Roland de Vaux from Feb. 15 to Mar. 5, 1949,38
and underwent four more seasons of excavations through 1956. De Vaux
excavated through the floors of the Qumran settlement, which was
established during the Hasmonean dynasty.39
De Vaux concluded that the site was the residence of some sort of
ascetic Jewish sect because with the exception of a few hoards of
Tyrian half-shekels and a few pieces of fine wares, the settlement
was devoid of compelling remains of wealthy residents. Ten years of
subsequent excavation were conducted by Magen and Peleg from
1993-2004.40

Does
Barfield believe that de Vaux did not dig deep enough? Were ten
additional years of excavation by Magen and Peleg, which produced
little but clay, not enough? And does Barfield not realize that
Qumran and the surrounding area have not only been thoroughly
excavated, but have been pillaged for every scrap of manuscript and
precious metal for the past sixty years? Again, I am compelled to
ask: what has Barfield done that dozens of reputable scholars and
legitimate archaeologists (and Vendyl Jones) have not already done?
What special tool does Barfield possess that allows him such insight?

Barfield
tells us:

“I’m,
I’m gonna be real honest with ya, I’m gonna give ya the
non-political, uh, answer to this, or a, the politically incorrect
answer: I believe at times that the Father allowed me to see these
things.”41

There
you have it: the “Father” allows him to see
these things. Barfield’s scholarly methodology and the key to
his understanding of the location of the Copper Scroll treasure is
that, “the Father allowed [him] to see” things that
trained scholars could not. Who can argue with that?

I
can. Allow me to demonstrate the folly of this statement. First, what
has Barfield found? He has found nothing, not a single thing! And,
according to his circular reasoning, he has not found anything
because he has not been allowed to dig “to the proper depth.”
But then Barfield admits that were he allowed to dig to the proper
depth:

That
is to say, even if Barfield digs in the places that he claims possess
treasure, and he finds no treasure, he is still correct because the
treasure was once there, but now is gone. Therefore, according to
Barfield’s circular reasoning, his theory is right whether he
digs or not, and whether he finds treasure or not. How convenient.

Likewise,
how can anyone argue with a claim that some divine entity secretly
revealed the location of treasure to him? According to Barfield, “the
Father allowed” him to see things. But to what has the Father
led him? Barfield has discovered nothing. Perhaps Barfield assumes
that by invoking divine inspiration, he immunizes himself from
criticism, for what right does anyone else have to tell him what “the
Father” has told him or allowed him to see? Again, Barfield’s
claim is sheer circular argumentation based on nothing: no facts, no
evidence, and no treasure. Again, how convenient.

Barfield
makes a series of additional unsubstantiated claims. For instance,
referring to the Copper Scroll, he claims:

“It
was one of the only, uh, Dead Sea Scrolls that was found, uh, by a
legitimate, uh, sanctioned, uh, archaeological dig.”43

This
statement is patently false. Cave 4, the most productive cave at
Qumran in terms of manuscripts and fragments, was discovered in
August 1952, and was excavated from Sept. 22-29, 1952 by Gerald
Lankester Harding, Roland de Vaux, and Józef Milik.44
In fact, a second season of excavation took place from Feb. 9 to Apr.
4, 1953, followed by a third season from Feb. 15 to Apr. 15, 1954,
and a fourth season from Feb. 2 to Apr. 6, 1955. The fragmentary
documents produced by Caves 7, 8, 9, and 10 were all excavated during
this fourth excavation season.45
Barfield’s claim that the Copper Scroll was the only document
discovered during a “legitimate, sanctioned” excavation
is simply not true.

Barfield’s
redesigned Copper Scroll Project website has a special section
dedicated to “Past ‘CS’ Expeditions,”46
which lists the “research” of only two individuals:
Vendyl Jones (who apparently continues to claim that he was the
personal inspiration behind Steven Spielberg’s “Indiana
Jones” movies) and John Allegro. Jones is viewed by just about
all archaeologists as a fringe scholar, while Allegro (after parting
ways with the Dead Sea Scrolls research team) published a book
entitled, “The Sacred Mushroom and the Cross,” which his
own website admits ruined his career.47
These are the inspirations for Jim Barfield and the Copper Scroll
Project.

Jimmy
Barfield is not the leader of any archaeological expedition. An
Israel Antiquities Authority employee with direct knowledge of Jimmy
Barfield, the Copper Scroll Project, and their claims has told me
personally that Mr. Barfield and his group are merely observers. They
do not possess a permit, they do not dig, and they do not lead. They
merely observed an ongoing excavation at Qumran, although they did
videotape the dig and posted it on the internet. Because Qumran is in
the West Bank, excavations there operate under the auspices of the
Civil Administration for Judea and Samaria. One will note that
Barfield always carefully states that an unnamed archaeologist from
the I. A. A. “obtained the proper permits.” That is to
say, neither Barfield nor his team ever had a permit; they were
merely observers on the digs. Therefore, any claim that he led an
excavation is an outright falsehood.

Likewise,
the Israel Antiquities Authority never sanctioned Barfield’s
excavation. They appear only to have met with him to discuss his
theories, as they do with thousands of tourists and archaeologists
each year. Barfield is always sure to capture these meetings with
credible (and some not-so-credible) individuals in photographs, which
he then prominently displays on the Copper Scroll Project website,
perhaps in order to give the illusion that they all “agreed”
with his research.48

Soon
after he observed an excavation at Qumran, Barfield fell out of
favor with the Israel Antiquities Authority. Once supervisors at the
I. A. A. were notified of Barfield’s Copper Scroll Project
website and read the claims he was making, and when they saw YouTube
videos in which Barfield claims the I. A. A. decided, “Let’s
just use metal detectors,”49
which are strictly forbidden by Israeli law, the I. A. A. cut off all
communication with Barfield and his group. According to a
representative at the I. A. A., Jimmy Barfield and the Copper Scroll
Project will participate in no further excavations, even as
observers. This much is evidenced by Barfield’s exasperated
comment in a June 30, 2009 update to his supporters, where he states:

“Information
and correspondence from Israel has stopped. Why, I can’t tell
you, but my email has not been answered since we left Israel in
May.”50

The
I. A. A. has disowned Jimmy Barfield. With the I. A. A. no longer
interested, and the academic community beginning to take notice of
his group and refute his bizarre claims, Barfield is taking his
message directly to the public, attempting to set up television and
radio interviews where he repeats his eccentric claims, but provides
no further evidence.

Barfield
has also recently removed his fund raising page from the Copper
Scroll Project Website. A cached version of that page reveals that
the Copper Scroll Project set up a 501(c)3 non-profit, tax exempt
fund for raising $148,000 they claim is needed to carry out their
investigation.51
Therefore, we must hold in suspicion Barfield’s claim:

If
the Copper Scroll Project is not about the money, then why did
Barfield establish a 501(c)3 fund? Why is there a “Copper
Scroll Funding Page” link on the Copper Scroll Project
website?53
And why did Barfield remove this fund raising page after it was
brought to the public’s attention in July 2009?54

I
do not wish to discuss Barfield’s political ideology in detail,
but I shall point out a couple of remarks I found rather disturbing.
In response to Tamar Yonah’s comment about the possibility
that, “this future possible Muslim state would get their hands
on [the Copper Scroll] and perhaps destroy it like they destroyed
artifacts on the Temple Mount,” Barfield responded:

“Because
if, if in fact some kind of a ridiculous two state solution were to
come about, it would, it’s bad enough to be givin’ away
the land of Israel, but for goodness sakes, let’s don’t
give away the treasures that belong to Israel as well.”55

I
cannot begin to comprehend why Mr. Barfield would make such
incendiary comments in the context of an interview about archaeology.
I do not believe it appropriate to categorize a two-state solution
and a homeland for Palestinians beside Israel as “ridiculous.”
I am certain that many Palestinians would dispute Barfield’s
categorization of the land-for-peace process as “givin’
away the land of Israel.” Likewise, I resent the idea that
Barfield wants to dig up Qumran, a West Bank site, before
Palestinians can get to theoretical treasures Barfield believes to be
at Qumran. This is nothing more than using archaeology as a political
weapon, and I join the archaeological community around the world in
condemning this practice outright!

I
am equally disturbed by Barfield’s comments about the lack of
qualification of Israeli government officials to handle
archaeological materials discovered in the course of their
excavations. Barfield states:

“And,
here’s, here’s my thoughts: the government of Israel is,
is not qualified, uhhhh, they’re not qualified to handle these
items.”56

I
am certain that career archaeological professionals working for the
I. A. A. and other departments within the Israeli government do not
appreciate being told by a retired fire investigator from Oklahoma
with no archaeological credentials that they are “not qualified
to handle these items.” In fact, if the I. A. A. did not
already have enough reason to cut off contact with Barfield and his
group, I’m sure this comment more than made up for it.

Jimmy
Barfield’s theological and political ideologies, including a
desire to see no portion of what he claims is “the land of
Israel” given to Palestine, his loathing of a “ridiculous”
two-state solution between Israel and Palestine, and his claim that
the Israeli government is “unqualified” to handle
antiquities found in territory under its administration betrays
Barfield’s true mission. The Copper Scroll Project must be
judged not as an archaeological project, but as a religious and
ideological group raising money for pilgrimages to Israel under the
cover of an archaeological expedition.

Perhaps
Barfield best sums up his qualifications in his own words:

“I
am not an archaeologist. I want people to understand that very
clearly. I’m not an archaeologist. I’m not a historian.I’m simply, a,
uh, gentleman from Oklahoma that has figured out the Copper Scroll.”57

Indeed,
I could not agree more with the first part of Barfield’s
statement. Barfield is neither an archaeologist, nor an historian,
nor a palaeographer, nor a philologist: he’s simply a retired
fire investigator from Oklahoma, in the same way that Simcha
Jacobovici is neither naked nor an archaeologist, but merely a
filmmaker. And there is no shame in that. Public servants like
firemen and policemen are hard working, honorable men and women that
hold noble professions. They risk their lives to protect those of us
who cannot otherwise do so. I honor firemen and policemen, and I do
not for a moment pretend that I am able to do their jobs, nor do I
claim to possess the extensive training that is required to do their
jobs. I know my limitations and I am comfortable with letting those
professionals be professionals. Barfield should realize that the same
is true for fire marshals pretending to be archaeologists and
biblical scholars.

No,
Mr. Barfield, you have not “figured out the Copper Scroll.”
What you have done is claim to have done so, raised thousands of
dollars in contributions and support, done numerous interviews and
press releases in support of your claims, and sparked the
imaginations of countless faithful individuals hoping to see evidence
of something—anything—that confirms their faith. However,
you have given them something false and misleading; you have made
claims you cannot back up based upon theories you cannot support.
Your son produces excellent videos and you have a slick website, but
underlying it all is circular reasoning and pseudo-science. I suggest
you read Dr. Eric Cline’s book From
Eden To Exile,58
which discusses pseudo-scientific efforts by those who desire to
prove claims made in the Bible by (mis)using archaeology. No, one
does not need a Ph.D. to be an archaeologist, but one should have
some basic training in archaeology, palaeography, philology, and
perhaps a basic understanding of the Hebrew language before one
claims to have “cracked the code” on any Hebrew
manuscript. Let the archaeologists be the archaeologists, and we’ll
let the fire investigators be the fire investigators.

What
I have chronicled above is precisely why Jimmy Barfield attempted to
circumvent the scholarly process: his findings simply do not stand up
to cross examination. Likewise, this is precisely why trained
archaeologists must stand up and combat these amateur attempts to
mislead the public with sensational claims. The archaeological
community must bring the academy to the public so that they will not
fall prey to the claims of the likes of Mr. Barfield and the Copper
Scroll Project. The academy must take back the public media for
legitimate archaeology and better educate the public about real
science and archaeology. Finally, the academy must not shy away from
insisting that the public media, and those that utilize it for
profit, submit to the scholarly process.

So,
Mr. Barfield, welcome to the scholarly process. Enjoy.

NOTES:

3 All
time stamp references to the Tamar Yonah’s interview with Jim
Barfield are based upon the .mp4 of the interview available at
http://bobcargill.wordpress.com/2009/08/24/transcript-of-tamar-yonahs-interview-of-copper-scroll-project-director-jim-barfield/.

19 http://barthsnotes.wordpress.com/2009/08/24/jerusalem-post-puffs-jim-barfields-copper-scroll-treasure-quest/.
Bartholomew and Dr. Jim West
(http://jwest.wordpress.com/2009/08/23/post-ashamed/) have
chronicled Barfield’s Copper Scroll Project since it began
making sensational claims.

27 Jones’
website claims, “On April 1st 1988, his excavation team found
a juglet of Holy Anointing Oil made by Moses himself.”
(http://www.noahidenations.com/content/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=432&Itemid=38)
P. Kyle McCarter refutes Jones’ claim in a 1992 article by
David Margolis entitled, “Finding the Lost Ark: The original
'Raider,' working on faith, is deluding himself - and us.”
McCarter states, “No objects from the Temple are named in the
Copper Scroll - not the Ark of the Covenant, not the ashes of the
Red Heifer, not even the ‘holy anointing oil.’ There is
no reason at all to suppose that these objects are meant. The Scroll
names only silver and gold. Moreover, what Jones claimed was ‘the
anointing oil,’ had been identified only as an oil,
manufactured and widely used in the ancient Dead Sea area, of the
same type as the Temple anointing oil. Though the find had excited
archeologists, Jones took a long logical leap to identify it as the
Temple anointing oil.”
(http://www.davidmargolis.com/article.php?id=17&cat_fp=2)